Publications: Chicago’s energy initiatives need support

In the fall of 2006, the city of Chicago formed a Climate Task Force (CTF) to develop a climate action plan with the stated goal of mitigating and adapting to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the use and implementation of clean and renewable energy sources. Over the next two years, the CTF worked closely with various city departments and a host of other groups in the environmental, research and business communities to formulate a plan.

In September 2008, the task force released, with much fanfare and accolades and support from Mayor Richard M. Daley, the Chicago Climate Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP called for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 with an initial goal of a 25 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. To achieve these overall goals, the CCAP focused on five strategies: 1) making buildings more energy efficient, 2) using cleaner and more renewable sources of energy, 3) improving the city’s transportation options, 4) reducing waste and industrial pollution and 5) adapting more quickly to changes in climate.

As heralded in the city’s Progress Report from the summer of 2010, since the implementation of the CCAP, Chicago has made great strides in achieving these goals. Highlights include 1) retrofitting of old, inefficient homes and buildings, 2) encouraging the purchase of energy-efficiency appliances and fixtures, 3) adding hybrid business to the Chicago Transit Authority’s fleet, 4) using alternative fuels and 5) increasing recycling of construction and demolition debris. Some of these changes have been driven by the passing of new legislation (city ordinances and codes, state law, public policy changes and other initiatives and programs), some have been driven by business and individual tax incentives and some have been driven by government agencies and citizens making direct purchases or indirectly taking actions to do their part. Most recently, a new “Clean Power” ordinance introduced by the Chicago City Council to curb coal plant emissions from plants around the Chicago area. Although there were several hours of hearings last month, no vote was taken on the matter. Proponents argued the positive environmental impact with minimal economic impact. Opponents focused on jobs and the cost to implement. Ultimately, the matter will fall to Mayor Rahm Emanuel to take up.

Such a debate, however, highlights two major themes that are echoed through the halls of many local and state governments across the country: 1) that the economic recession of 2008-2010, and the political changes resulting from the 2010 midterm elections, materially and adversely impacted the progress of green and climate change initiatives and 2) without a long-term federal policy, or greater, more permanent federal funding for state and local based initiatives, states and municipalities will continue to struggle with these topics that are essentially global in impact.

While some of the initiatives in the CCAP can be funded locally by individuals, businesses and government agencies, some of the larger, more capital intensive projects such as renewable power generation (and ultimate usage), require enormous financial resources. And although Congress passed and the president signed into law, a continuing resolution modifying (and by most accounts, improving) the authority (and funding levels) of the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide loan guarantees under its Title XVII, Section 1703 and Section 1705, programs, including the DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, known as ARPA-E, these changes are only applicable through the end of the year. Large-scale projects require long-term planning, not year-to-year uncertainties. While this resolution may save projects currently in the pipeline, it provides little comfort to those projects not yet ready for DOE applications, but have been in the works for many months and perhaps years. This is just one example where the economic recession and recent political changes have disrupted the process that was previously underway for coherent federal policies on issues of national and international significance.

Further, in light of these uncertainties, if federal assistance is imperative, selecting the right program for your project or technology, and then navigating and applying for the myriad of federal programs and incentives available, from the DOE, to the IRS, to the Department of Agriculture, to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, requires careful planning and direction. Nonetheless, Chicago is to be applauded for showing leadership at the local level on environmental, energy and climate change issues. Perhaps these demonstrations of local leadership may “trickle up” to the national level and provide the spark needed for strong, long-term, clear and coherent federal leadership on these issues.

Reprinted with permission from Chicago Daily Law Bulletin